nationfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Crystalbeastdeck09/Bills for Congress
Last comment of the night. Labour Union Law that you have made is in one word = scary. *First of all article 1 counteracts article 3 as article 1 only makes it legal to do things about pay (and the word 'better' in there? who defines better?). *Secondly you allow Union members to strike when they want, without an internal vote, without warning and without setting an aim or even a limit on the days they are allowed to strike. Workers can legally strike without any reason, they can just not go to work and say they were striking that day. *3rd: you have not put in strike protection for the strikers nor for the business that the union has members within. And what about Lockout resistance? *4th: article 3.3 in totality is kind of crazy. Firstly government really should stay out of things as much as possible, legislation should cover the events, we don't need to add in bureaucracy especially when it has no power. Secondly *5th: article 4. You don't need to legalise something people can do anyways. It seems to me like bureaucracy in the form of another government 'moderator' as well. On top of that can't strike for 20 and 25 months? hmm... seems a bit restrictive and shouldn't that really be defined in article 3. *6th: Also 30 months for things that are essential to national security, so basically after 30 months they can run amok? we need proper permanent protection. *7th: Also workers can be laid off in the public sector but not in the Private sector? and that's only as long as they want to assemble a union or want to unionise. So basically I can have a permanent job in the Private sector as long as I say that I want to assemble. *also what about procedure during a strike? should workers really allowed to be paid the same or paid at all when striking? why shouldn't businesses be protected from workers striking after all the risk they go through when they hire workers (especially ones that are part of a union(even more so when that union has gone on strike in the past)). there are a lot more things to consider. Workers and businesses need more out of this. I may have more and I may or may not post them tonight but I'm not trying to pick holes for the hell of it. I'm just pointing out the flaws for you to see and to improve. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 00:05, January 19, 2013 (UTC) I do relize this and will add in some of these, seeing as I was trying to just form something...Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:11, January 19, 2013 (UTC) I'm just going to come flat out and say that workers shouldn't receive pay while on strike. Also a Lockout and Strike are very different and technically workers shouldn't receive pay on a lockout either. The whole idea behind people getting paid is down to them fulfilling their end of the contract, not working and striking means that they shouldn't get paid. And on trying to validate a strike, maybe you should make it so that they have to call a vote on the strike and all members have the right to vote, then they need at least 75% of the members to say yes before calling a strike. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:53, January 19, 2013 (UTC) *@First - Better is defined by the Union itself which represents the workers and by the workers joing said Union they understand the "better" *@Second/Vote/Sixth - I've added in a 70% vote by a "head council" or total membership is needed to strike. Striking whenever is something a Labour Party would want, but i acknowledge this was maybe to "left" but still want preferential treatment to the middle class and Unions. BUT do want to make ure when speaking of the national security (like how there was a prison guard strike in UK recently or threatened Airport security stike in the UK) that doesn't happen but there also just to negiotiate and advocate for better pay/working consitions. **Added in clasue to make sure these unions from policing to prison security have the right to strike and bargin but so long as it doesnt hurt the people too much. *@third - not adressed yet. *fourth - I wanted to add this only becuase if a strike lasts too long (like education, or health care) and work is needed, someone independent, should go in a be able to settle the agreement so people aren't harmed by it. *five - technically I do, because I want to protect Unions. If there is no law, then private businesses or a public sector operation may be able to let go of a Union without cause, or even fire workers that would like to form a Union. I'm trying to protect workers. *seven - not too sure about proecdure, havent adressed yet. *Other/eight - If a strike/lockout in which the employer gives up, workers deserve some payment (7%) so they have some money to tide them over until the contract dispute is settled. Again made it 70% of a council or total membership to strike. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:39, January 19, 2013 (UTC) #Leave the word out, that would be better. #No, it should be by all with membership only. No union is required to democratically elect leaders so they could just appoint leaders who can call strikes at will. Also calling strikes whenever? that's the way to destroy a nations economy, look at the UK when the unions practically controlled the country in the 70s and early 80s. #... #No. If they can't come to an agreement as adults themselves, government coming in without any power is going to do nothing. A waste of time and resources for everyone. #The law you are writing hardly protects workers and hardly protects business. It is open fully to abuse however I accept this may be because it is an early draft. #... #... #Not really, the workers are not fulfilling their contract, no payment while they are striking is needed. The employer should not have to pay, when the employer locks out (the reserve of a strike) workers in protest, should they have to fulfil 7% of their side of the contract? no, when one side does not fulfil their contract neither does the other have to. In the real world unions give their members subsidies to help them out while a strike is in progress. Also the vote: 75% would be better, if the situation is bad, 75% is enough. I think I'm going to write my own act. I feel that it would probably be better to allow you to come at it from your angle and I'll come from my own. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:06, January 19, 2013 (UTC) #okay then ......? #Made it by membership, 70% still. It's 7 votes for, 3 against for every ten votes, i'm pretty sure the strike is wanted. #How would you adress this? #How would you settle a strike lasting four, five, six weeks? In the US a moderator is sent in, weather its by the government or not. #/7... *8 - It's not a subsidy. If an employer just gives up on the Union or a contract then they deserve some benefit in turn...maybe not a strike but in a lockout why should if the Union come to the table shouldn't the employer, and a deal reached. I really don't have time to make a full comment but I will reply to point 8: No. The Union may be being unreasonable and to just assume at all times that they deserve benefits because the employer is saying they will now waste their money on such workers. Also the employer needs to be able to demonstrate against workers who are not keeping their end of the bargin. Do not pretend that employers are rich and powerful and owe something to the workers they employ. If an unreasonable Union gets locked out and then refuses to come to the table, what benefit will you give to the employer? will you have the workers being forced to 7% of their contract or will government give handouts to the business to compensate them (both of which are terrible ideas). You should try and be more balanced about this. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:51, January 19, 2013 (UTC) Okay then, let's make this bi-partisan. On your corporate end, what would be a resonable approach to this? I still think during a lockout forced by an employer some payment should be given, even if it's as small as 2-3%. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:55, January 19, 2013 (UTC) I think I'll write the reasonable approach in my act. Corporate end? I stand on neither union or corporate end, I'm simply pointing out that you've only considered the Union end and not the Employers end. Also when a contract isn't being fulfilled by one side the other shouldn't have to fulfil it either. Otherwise by your reasoning if workers go on strike they should still have to fulfil 3% of their contract. Which would mean that someone who works a 8 hour day and is on strike should have to work properly for 14 minutes and 24 seconds. The answer is simple: Contract not being fulfilled by one side, the other is not required to fulfil their contract. As it is everywhere else. Employers take a huge risk taking on employees and should not be punished even more than they will be by having made a poor choice of employee if they hire a group of workers who decide to be sloppy. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:20, January 19, 2013 (UTC) And i'm saying give me something then that would protect the employer, so in turn both are. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:57, January 19, 2013 (UTC)